Posted on 01/25/2012 5:32:51 PM PST by Lmo56
Last Thursday’s GOP presidential debate was a doozy. Some of the commercials weren’t bad, either. My favorite was the ad from the National Popular Vote movement, promoting legislation in the 50 states to guarantee that the people, not the electoral college, choose our president.
Mind you, I’ve always found it kind of fallacious to worry that our current system elevates popular-vote losers to the presidency: that’s because popular votes cast in a state-by-state contest for 270 electoral votes do not reflect the national will. Rather, they reflect the results of a competition in which candidates tailor their messages and deploy their resources according to the rules of the electoral college; they would do everything differently if the goal was a popular-vote majority.
So when Al Gore got about 500,000 votes more than George W. Bush in 2000 but still lost, I was pretty much unmoved. Complaining about that — as opposed to the different issue of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore — was like griping that your basketball team lost even though it made more free throws.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We already have a constitution that does that.
Limited the federal government to enumerated powers, even.
We don't need anything new. We just need to enforce what we already have.
Thomas Jefferson said something politically incorrect about how to do that.
If you change to popular vote, it makes the potential to steal an election by fraud far easier. Someone in, say, Los Angeles or New York would simply stuff the ballot box by any means necessary with no regard to the other 49 states.
The Electoral College turns the election into 51 elections which changes the race into fighting over the tossup states. If you went to popular vote, the election would be fought in the major metropolitan areas exclusively.
And, as you say, fraud would determine the winner in every close election.
For example, the 1960 Yankees out-scored the Pittsburgh Pirates by 55-27...but the Pirates won the series 4-3. Should the Yankees have been declared World Champions, instead?
Not exactly.
There are two senators/state because Delaware and New Jersey threatened to leave the Constitutional Convention if they didn’t get their way. It was quite unfair actually for Delaware with 40,000 inhabitants to have the same Senatorial representation as Virginia with ten times the number.
IIRC, the delegates considered seven different modes of electing a President. Electors chosen by State legislatures was selected not because it was a great system, but because it was the mode least likely to be corrupted.
“We don’t need anything new. We just need to enforce what we already have.”
I agree, but it seems that the Constitution is currently thought of as ‘merely a set of guidelines’, and many who take the oath of office think of it as a nuisance that they have to find ways around.
Ive always thought of it as genius on the Founding Fathers part.....Having just the House with with proportional voting is like a Democracy...Mob Rule!...They understood the principles of a Republic where even the little guy (small state) had equal protection...
By adding the Senate and giving equal power to the smaller states, they guaranteed protection from mob rule and a check as to what was best for the WHOLE COUNTRY, not just the populated states (checks and balances).....
Instead of running roughshod over the little guy (a Democracy)...Laws must be crafted so as not to disenfranchise the little guy (a Republic)
I don't disagree with the outcome. I would like to see the 17th repealed and see the States represented in their corporate capacity.
What I'm saying is we have equality of Senatorial suffrage because of practical politics. If we wanted DE and NJ to be in the Union, the rest of the States had to accept their terms. DE in fact, passed a law that prevented their delegates from accepting anything less than equality.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.
Such a pretty colored map. Suitable for primary grades.
Most Americans don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
NationalPopularVote
States cannot opt out and have the law remain in place for next time.
The bill says:
“Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”
If a state withdrew, it would have to re-pass and re-enact the bill to have it be in effect for the next presidential election.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. NONE of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored —including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
All should be aware that mvymvy is nothing but a lying seminar posting troll. If you search key phrases of his posts, you’ll often find the exact same phrase used in literally hundreds of different forums and letter to the editor.
Ellie light incarnate.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who ignored or focused exclusively on the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
You should be aware that mvymvy is nothing but a pro popilar vote troll. I searched just one phrase from his posting to you
“The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.”
I found the exact same word for word phrase in no less than 10 different forums and blogs.
The polls aren’t asking people if they think the Electoral College sucks.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College from the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
A Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President.
In a recent Gallup poll, support for a national popular vote, by political affiliation, is now:
53% among Republicans, 61% among Independents, and 71% among Democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150245/americans-swap-electoral-college-popular-vote.aspx
Other polling company results:
In 2011, 83% of Tennessee voters polled agreed that “The presidential candidate who gets the most votes always should be the winner,”
Every political demographic group across the state favors changing to a system driven by the popular vote, the poll showed.
When Republicans were asked, “How should the President be elected, by who gets the most votes in all 50 states or by the current winner-takes-all system?” 73% of them favored the popular vote.
Of all Democrats asked the same question, 78% favored the popular vote system.
When respondents who agree with Tea Party values were asked, 72% of them preferred the popular vote.
Noted Political Science Professor Dr. Terry Madonna of Franklin and Marshall University (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) released the results of a poll showing that two out of three Pennsylvanians believe the President should be the candidate who “gets the most votes in all 50 states.”
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/madonnapolltopline_20110327.php
When asked about abolishing the Electoral College, which National Popular Vote would NOT do:
In a poll by Penn Schoen Berland, 74 percent of Americans thought the Electoral College should be abolished.
http://www.slideshare.net/PennSchoenBerland/aspen-ideas-poll-7-910
In a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion, 64 per cent of respondents thought that whoever gets the most votes should be elected president.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/39408/americans_want_to_scrap_electoral_college/
Most Americans don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.